1. By fax dated November 17, 1997 the London firm of solicitors,
Herbert Smith, presented a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter "the Commission") against the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
(hereinafter "the State" or "Trinidad") on behalf of Mr. Denny
Baptiste, presently under sentence of death at the State Prison in Port of Spain. The
petition stated that the High Court of Trinidad at the Port of Spain Assizes tried the
Applicant for the murder of Mr. Alexander Jordan on February 13, 1991 along with two
co-defendants, Ms. Indravani (Pamela) Ramjattan and Mr. Haniff Hilaire. The Applicant was
convicted on May 29, 1995 and sentenced to the mandatory death penalty for murder.

Precautionary Measures

2. Simultaneous with the presentation of the complaint, the
Applicant requested the Commission to issue precautionary measures, pursuant to article
29(2) of its Regulations, and to seek a stay of execution pending the determination of the
complaint by the Commission. On November 24, 1997, the Commission requested the State to
stay Mr. Baptiste's execution "until such time as the Commission has had the
opportunity to consider this case and issue its decision." The Commission requested
"an immediate consent to the above request."

3. The State of Trinidad and Tobago did not respond to this
request for precautionary measures. The Commission regrets that the State party was not
prepared to grant the precautionary measures requested under article 29(2) of its
Regulations, and to guarantee that the Petitioner would not be executed while his case was
under examination. In fact, however, as of September 28, 1998, the petitioner has not been
executed. The Commission observes that it is not for the State party, but for the
Commission, to decide whether or not a complaint is admissible. The Commission requests
the State to cooperate fully with the Commission's examination of communications in the
future.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4. Mr. Baptiste's appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Republic
of Trinidad and Tobago was dismissed on March 10, 1997. On October 7, 1997, the Applicant
and his co-defendants lodged petitions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The
Applicant lodged a Supplementary Petitioner to the Privy Council on November 4, 1997. On
November 7, 1997, the Applicant's petition was dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council.

5. The complaint alleges that the following articles of the
American Convention were violated by the State of Trinidad and Tobago to the detriment of
the Applicant: articles 5, 7 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter
"the Convention" or "the American Convention"). On December 12, 1997,
a Supplementary Petition was filed on behalf of Mr. Denny Baptiste by the petitioners.
Specifically, the petitioners allege serious violations as regards the right to legal
representation in a capital case. The petition alleges, inter alia, that "the
Applicant received insufficient and inadequate representation from his Trinidadian
lawyers." The petition alleges that the Applicant first met with his lawyer only just
before his case was heard at the Magistrates' Court, after he had been about one year in
custody. According to the petition, at trial it was possible for the Applicant to see his
lawyer for only five minutes each day. None of the witnesses whom the Applicant wanted to
be called at trial were called as the lawyer failed to contact them. In addition, the
petition alleges that the Trial Judge erred in his directions to the jury. Further, the
petition alleges that the Applicant was arrested by the police on February 16, 1991, but
that he was not tried, convicted and sentenced until more than four years later on May 29,
1995.

6. The State of Trinidad and Tobago responded to the petition by
Note POL:6/16/2 Vol. 5 of January 16, 1998. In this Note, the State informed the
Commission that the "Instructions Relating to Applications from Persons under
Sentence of Death issued by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on 13 October 1997, are
deemed to apply to the communication of Denny Baptiste. Case No 11.840." In addition,
the State pointed out that:

... in order for any recommendation by the Commission to
be considered by the Minister of National Security when advising his Excellency the
President of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, the Government of Trinidad and
Tobago respectfully requests the Commission to submit its determination in respect of the
communication within a period of six months from the date of the despatch of the response
by the State party.

In other words, the State requested that the Commission issue a
decision on the merits in this case within a period of six months from January 16, 1998 or
by July 16, 1998. According to the State, the decision of the Commission would be
considered by the Minister of National Security when advising the President as to whether
he should exercise the prerogative of mercy. Unlike other systems where the prerogative of
mercy is considered part of the domestic process, in Trinidad and Tobago the international
instance is used to inform the domestic process.

7. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at the request
of the Government, held a meeting on February 20, 1998, during its 98th period of
sessions, with Mr. Ralph Maraj, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Trinidad
and Tobago and Mr. Ramesh L. Maharaj, the Attorney General of that State. In his
statement, the Attorney General argued that the "Commission has no power to challenge
the implementation of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in
Trinidad and Tobago." The argument of the State is as follows:

Under the Convention, the Commission has the power to
make recommendations to the State Party, but in so far as those recommendations relate to
a sentence imposed by the courts of the State Party it would be acting ultra vires
if it attempted to alter by its recommendations the domestic law of the State in respect
of sentencing. The Commission therefore has no power to challenge the implementation of a
sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in Trinidad and Tobago.

The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago mandates all arms of the State,
including the Judicial arm, to uphold the law of Trinidad and Tobago. The State of
Trinidad and Tobago therefore has a mandatory obligation to ensure that its Constitution
and laws are not undermined, subverted or frustrated in their operation. It was for this
reason that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, by its reservation entered when
accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights, stated
that the Court can only have jurisdiction to the extent that it is consistent with the
Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. The Commission therefore does not have jurisdiction
either by its acts or omissions to prevent in any way a sentence, authorized by the
Constitution and laws of Trinidad and Tobago and pronounced by a court of competent
jurisdiction, from being carried into effect. It is therefore open for the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago, whilst a petition is pending before the Commission, to carry out
the sentence of death once the time stipulated in accordance with the Constitution and
laws of Trinidad and Tobago has expired. The Commission may recommend the award of
compensation to a victim. It may recommend that the State Party correct those matters
which gave rise to a substantive breach so that others do not suffer the same violation in
future. However it is submitted that the Commission, either directly or by its
recommendation, has no power to alter the lawful sentence imposed by a court of a State
Party. (Emphasis added).

8. An article published in the Trinidad
Express on March 13, 1998 stated the Ministry of the Attorney General had issued a press
release to the effect that "the six-month period in respect to their [Tony Briggs and
Wenceslaus James] applications to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights expires on
June 11, 1998, and after this date the state will decide what action it will take in
respect to the two condemned men."1 This article gave the impression
that Briggs and James would be the first two prisoners to be hanged by the State of
Trinidad and Tobago. The same article also stated that "[F]ollowing Briggs and James
there are three other Death Row inmates listed to be executed soon after. They are Anthony
Garcia and Anderson Noel and Christopher Bethel."

9. As a result of the above-mentioned meeting on February 20,
1998, the Commission decided to request provisional measures from the Court in the cases
of James, Briggs, Noel, Garcia and Bethel. The Commission, during its 99th special meeting
approved the text of this request and on May 22, 1998, the Commission formally requested
provisional measures in those cases.

10. On May 27, 1998, the President of the Inter-American Court
granted Provisional Measures in the cases of James, Briggs, Noel, Garcia and Bethel, and
decided to require the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago "to take all measures
necessary to preserve the lives of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel,
Anthony Garcia and Christopher Bethal, so that the Court may examine the pertinence of the
provisional measures requested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights." On
June 14, 1998, the Court, in plenary, ratified the President's action and ordered
"Trinidad and Tobago to take all measures necessary to preserve the life and physical
integrity of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia and
Christopher Bethel, so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the
Inter-American system."

11. Since the six month time period established in the
Government's "Instructions" had expired in mid July, the petitioners, in a
communication dated July 14, 1998, were concerned that a Warrant of Execution would be
read to Mr. Baptiste imminently. The petitioners requested the Commission to ask the Court
to order provisional measures, pursuant to article 63(2) of the Convention, to preserve
the life of Mr. Baptiste.

12. On July 21, 1998, the Commission requested the Court to
amplify the provisional measures ordered on May 27, 1998 and ratified on June 14, 1998 in
favor of Wenceslaus James, et al. to include Mr. Denny Baptiste. By Order of the President
of the Court dated July 22, 1998, Mr. Baptiste was included in the earlier Order and the
Court decided "[T]o require the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to take all measures
necessary to preserve the life and physical integrity of Denny Baptiste, so that the Court
may examine the pertinence of the request of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
to amplify the provisional measures adopted in the James, Briggs, Noel, Garcia and Bethel
cases." On August 29, 1998, the full Court ratified the President's Order dated July
22, 1998.

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. The Commission's Competence

13. Trinidad and Tobago is a State party to the American
Convention, having ratified the treaty on May 28, 1991. The petition alleges violations of
human rights set forth in the Convention which the Commission is competent to review.

B. Procedural Admissibility of the Petition

1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

14. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago stated in its response
dated December 15, 1997 that:

In the interests of expediency (...) notwithstanding the
failure of the Applicant to first seek redress for his grievances by way of a
Constitutional Motion before the domestic courts of Trinidad and Tobago, except as herein
expressly provided, the State party raises no challenge to the admissibility of this
communication based on the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule (...).

15. The petitioners, in the observations to the response of the
State Party, dated March 20, 1998, noted that "the State Party has raised no
challenge to the admissibility of this communication based on the `exhaustion of domestic
remedies rule.' The State Party has suggested, however, that the Applicant should first
have sought redress for his grievances by way of a Constitutional Motion before the
domestic courts of Trinidad and Tobago. It is submitted that for all practical purposes,
legal aid to a death row inmate in Trinidad and Tobago for redress by way of
Constitutional Motion remains an illusory remedy, therefore it should not be regarded as
an available remedy under domestic law for the purposes of Article 46(1)(a) of the
Convention or Article 37(2)(b) of the Regulations . Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention and
Article 37(2)(b) of the Regulations provide that the requirement for domestic remedies to
have been exhausted is not applicable where:

`the party alleging the violation of his rights has been
denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting
them.'

It is submitted that the Applicant has effectively been denied
access to the remedy of a Constitutional Motion, or has been prevented from exhausting
this remedy, by virtue of the fact that legal aid is in effect not available for a
Constitutional Motion."

16. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission and Court
supports the view that a remedy needs to be effective and capable of producing the result
for which it was designed, and that it is not sufficient for the remedy simply to be
available. (Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June
26, 1987, para. 88). For an indigent prisoner, who has exhausted all judicial appeals
including recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, to be
expected to file a constitutional motion, the burden of proof lies with the State to show
that this remedy is effective and capable of producing the result which would make it
worthwhile for the prisoner to pursue. In the opinion of the Commission, the State did not
meet the burden of proof in this case and consequently the Commission finds this case
admissible.

2. Timely filing

17. The petition was presented within six months of the final
ruling of the appeal on conviction and sentence pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the
Convention. Mr. Baptiste's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the
Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago on March 10, 1997. His application for leave to
appeal his conviction was dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
London, on November 7, 1997. The petition was filed before the Commission on November 17,
1997.

3. No duplication of other international
procedures

18. The petition satisfies the requirements of article 46(1)(c)
in that it is not pending settlement in another international proceeding, nor does it
duplicate a petition already examined and settled by the Commission or by another
international governmental organization of which the State concerned is a member.

IV. CONCLUSION

19. The Commission finds that the petition is admissible having
satisfied the requirements of article 46 of the American Convention.

20. Taking the foregoing considerations into account,

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

DECIDES:

1. To declare the present case admissible.

2. To place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to
seeking a friendly settlement of the matter based on the respect for human rights, as
recognized in the American Convention.

3. To make public this report and to publish it in its Annual
Report to the OAS General Assembly.

Approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the
city of Washington, D.C. on the 3rd day of the month of November 1998. (Signed): Carlos
Ayala Corao, Chairman; Robert K. Goldman, Vice Chairman; Jean Joseph Exume, Second Vice
Chairman; Commissioners Alvaro Tirado Mejia, Claudio Grossman and Henry Forde.